Main Navigation

Main Content

A non-profit publication of the Office of the University Relations of Virginia Tech,
including The Conductor, a special section of the Spectrum printed 4 times a year

What Defines University Community?

Spectrum Volume 18 Issue 17 - January 18, 1996

To the Editor:

After attending the public forum called by Provost Peggy Meszaros on December
5 for the purpose of addressing concerns within the university about cases of
sexual assault and their disposition, one came away feeling that an acute lack
of "trust in the system" and how it functions underlies discussions at every
point.

This situation points to the lack of a clear consensus about what values and
procedures define the Virginia Tech community as well as a great deal of
misunderstanding about matters on which agreement is thought to have been
achieved or is taken for granted.

When Tech declared an end to the mandatory requirement of enrollment in the
Corps and became co-ed in 1962, it set itself on the course of becoming a major
land-grant university which was to have a College of Arts and Sciences to
balance the existing colleges. This meant putting aside the image of being an
institution with a predominantly male military student body enrolled primarily
in non-liberal arts curricula.

The questions which arose in my mind then were: what will Tech's identity be
now, what traditions will have priority, how will these be determined and how
soon will the alumni and the general public understand the new vision? In
short, what would the new community to be created look like, and what values
and assumptions would underlie it?

To a greater degree than some would care to admit, I see the same unanswered
questions arising today. My greatest concern is that Tech does not and may not
recognize answers to them even when events and discussions point to
solutions.

Building a meaningful community for a large group of diverse people is
absolutely essential if that community is to survive the deep divisions which
are inevitably present. This process does not happen via technology. The steps
involved do not include referring questions to specific offices or asking
people to write their suggestions and submit them to those charged with
proposing solutions. Nor can its premises be set forth effectively by those who
"report to" administrators at the highest level.

Rather, community building results from face-to-face dialogue with students
and faculty members and shared experiences which provide a common framework
through which everyone can interact. To create this environment requires
leadership from those at the highest level, and this leadership must
demonstrate the priority it gives to this task. If Tech's budget is truly at
risk, Minnis Ridenour alone does not lobby for change-President Torgersen is
engaged as well. He must contribute his presence and his time if Tech is going
to be successful.

In specific terms, the students and others concerned about issues of sexual
assault on this campus are asking no less. For them, the issues which surround
this topic should be as important a priority for the administration as the
fiscal, political, and administrative health of the university. And it is the
active participation of President Torgersen as well as Provost Meszaros which
communicates this importance to the rest of the university.

Virginia Tech has as distinguished and competent an administrative team as it
has ever had. The faculty is obviously committed to and concerned about
education. There is no reason to give up on the actors in the current scenario.
What is needed is renewed vigilance and balanced judgment. The moment is not
unlike that in a good game of tennis. The score is 30-40, and the "admin" team
must win the next point to have a shot at the set. If they can't manage an ace,
then they will need to at least prepare for a good rally.